Logical proof: Islam does NOT support 9/11 and Moscow theater terrorism

[unbiased]

Here is a logical proof using quotes from the muslim holy scriptures that demonstrates that Islam does not condone or justify terrorist attacks such as those seen on sept 11th nor those seen in Moscow by the Chechens.

Point #1: Nowhere in the Muslims scriptures does it
state that under any circumstances is it ok to
purposefully target civilians (women and children)
during battle.
I cannot provide a quote, because it
does not exist, because it is a sin to target
civilians in Islam.
What we can find in the hadith are the following quotes regarding the ¡°rules of war¡± in Islam:

"Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm
person" [Book 21, Number 21.3.10]

"It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a
woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by
the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He
disapproved of the killing of women and
children.?[Book 19, Number 4319]

This clearly states that a Muslim is not to intentionally kill civilian women or children as part of a conflict.

Yes, there are circumstances where non-combatant women
and children are killed by accident, but according to Islam they are
clearly not to be the target:

"The Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) was asked
about attacking the Mushrikeen at night time, where
women and children get hit (un-intentionally). He
(salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) replied:
"They are from them. (i.e. the attack should not be
stopped because of the presence of women and
children.)" [Narrated by Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah,
At Tirmidhee etc.]

This is clearly stating that if they get killed
UNINTENTIONALLY then it is acceptable if the battle in
is in the name of Allah.

This clearly stating that it is NOT ok to
intentionally target civilians the way the Chechen
rebels did in Moscow, and the way the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attack did.

So clearly what the chechen terrorists did, and what the individuals in the 9/11 attack did was a transgression of islam. They are terrorists acting in unIslamic ways.


Point #2: Many Muslims state that the Chechens are so oppressed
and weak and that the russians are so evil that
murdering civilians is the only way that they can get
attention (and they say the same things with regards to the 9/11 attacks).
These muslims somehow wrongly feel that the atrocities performed against the muslims makes the muslim¡¯s violations of islam acceptable.
It does not.

Nowhere in the Muslim texts does it state that if the
enemy is evil, that that makes it ok to violate the
laws of Islam.
It does not exist.
The quoran states to do what you need to do, but do not transgress, because allah does not love transgressors:

book 2.
190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you,
but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not
transgressors.

193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult
or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in
Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility
except to those who practice oppression.

The civilians in the theater in Moscow were not combatants -
they were not practicing oppression at all - they just
went to the theater. The civilians in the 9/11 attacks in the airplanes and in the world trade center were not combatants, they were simply going to work or taking a trip.
Targeting them was a transgression of Islam that is inexcusable according to the quo¡¯ran.

So, what does the quoran say you (Muslims) should do if you are so oppressed and weak that you cannot fight?
Does it say you should transgress Islam by sinning in order to ¡°get the world¡¯s attention¡±?
NO it does NOT!
The quo¡¯ran says you still should not sin by transgressing islam, and that if you are that weak, then you still should NOT sin, but to
leave the area.
It states to do otherwise (ie what the Chechens and the 9/11 terrorist did) will land a Muslim in hell:

book 4
97. When angels take the souls of those who die in sin
against their souls, they say: "In what (plight) Were
ye?"
They [sinners] reply: "Weak and oppressed Were we in
the earth."
They [angels] say: "Was not the earth of Allah
spacious enough for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?"
Such men will find their abode in Hell,- What an evil
refuge! -

In conclusion, I have demonstrated that the chechen
rebels and the September 11th attackers purposefully targetting civilians for murder is a transgression of islam.
Furthermore I have shown the that quo'ran states that
it is irrelevant how evil the enemy may be, or how
oppressed the Muslims may be; regardless, the muslims
must NOT transgress Islam or they will go to hell.

The logic used in this argument flows as follows:
Premise 1: Islam specifically states that IF women and children are targeted for attack THEN it is against the laws of Islam.
Premise 2: The Chechen rebels and the 9/11 attackers targeted women and children in their attack

Conclusion: the Chechen rebels and the 9/11 attackers performed actions that were
against the laws of islam.

More simply:
Premise 1: If A then B
Premise 2: A
Conclusion: B

Clearly regardless of their goals, the chechen rebels and the 9/11 attackers were terrorists, and they have gone astray from the
teachings of Islam.

They should not be praised for their acts, but punished and shamed for their unIslamic terrorist acts.

Peace to everyone!
Unbiased

[Dantheman]

Hello, Unbiased.

There is a question that has been posed to Muslims on this board that has not been answered directly. If Islamic radicals aren't the 'true' Muslims, then where is the outrage and condemnation from the 'true' Muslims in the world when terrorists do their thing?

It seems that the Muslim community is more concerned about protecting their Muslim brothers than calling a murderer a murderer. I've heard many Muslims claim that they do not hate Jews, but they DO hate Israel and 'Zionists'. It's kinda like saying I like chicken but I hate hens and roosters. Do you see the problem for those of us that aren't Muslims?

[unbiased]

Hi,

For some reason there are very few muslims that are willing to stand up for what they believe in, and argue against their fellow muslims who are clearly violating many rules of their religion.

It amazes me to see the silence on the part of the good muslims as many other muslims call for actions which clearly violate Islam.

Perhaps it has something to do with a lack of solid leadership?
I have no idea.

But there are some good muslims who are willing to stand up and speak out against the Muslims that transgress their religion.

Some of them spoke out against terrorism after the sept 11th attacks.

Unbiased


Originally posted by Dantheman
Hello, Unbiased.

There is a question that has been posed to Muslims on this board that has not been answered directly. If Islamic radicals aren't the 'true' Muslims, then where is the outrage and condemnation from the 'true' Muslims in the world when terrorists do their thing?

It seems that the Muslim community is more concerned about protecting their Muslim brothers than calling a murderer a murderer. I've heard many Muslims claim that they do not hate Jews, but they DO hate Israel and 'Zionists'. It's kinda like saying I like chicken but I hate hens and roosters. Do you see the problem for those of us that aren't Muslims?

[IlyaFurman]

Islamic Statements Against Terrorism in the Wake of the September 11 Mass Murders

Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - [b]Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:

“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”
MSANews, September 14, 2001,

Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Qatar; Tariq Bishri, Egypt; Muhammad S. Awwa, Egypt; Fahmi Huwaydi, Egypt; Haytham Khayyat, Syria; Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, U.S.:

“All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason. Islam has declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of Judgment. ... [It is] necessary to apprehend the true perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and abet them through incitement, financing or other support. They must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law and [punished] appropriately. ... [It is] a duty of Muslims to participate in this effort with all possible means.”
The Washington Post, October 11, 2001, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40545-2001Oct10.html
Full text of this fatwa in English and Arabic.

Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt:

“Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgement. ... It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack.”
Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001

Abdel-Mo'tei Bayyoumi, al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy, Cairo, Egypt:

“There is no terrorism or a threat to civilians in jihad [religious struggle].”
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 20 - 26 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/552/p4fall3.htm

Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition Islamist group in Egypt, said it was “horrified” by the attack and expressed “condolences and sadness”:

“[We] strongly condemn such activities that are against all humanist and Islamic morals. ... [We] condemn and oppose all aggression on human life, freedom and dignity anywhere in the world.”
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 13 - 19 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/551/fo2.htm

Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual guide of Shi‘i Muslim radicals in Lebanon, said he was “horrified” by these “barbaric ... crimes”:

“Beside the fact that they are forbidden by Islam, these acts do not serve those who carried them out but their victims, who will reap the sympathy of the whole world. ... Islamists who live according to the human values of Islam could not commit such crimes.”
Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001

‘Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:[b]

“Firstly: the recent developments in the United States including hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts. Secondly: any Muslim who is aware of the teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Holy Qur'an and the sunnah (the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) will never involve himself in such acts, because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth.”
http://saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-15-Islam.htm

[b]Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Abdallah al-Sabil, member of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, Saudi Arabia:

“Any attack on innocent people is unlawful and contrary to shari'a (Islamic law). ... Muslims must safeguard the lives, honor and property of Christians and Jews. Attacking them contradicts shari'a.”
Agence France Presse, December 4, 2001

[IlyaFurman]

Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a prominent religious scholar in Qatar:

“Our hearts bleed for the attacks that has targeted the World Trade Center [WTC], as well as other institutions in the United States despite our strong oppositions to the American biased policy towards Israel on the military, political and economic fronts. Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin, this is backed by the Qur’anic verse which reads: ‘Who so ever kills a human being [as punishment] for [crimes] other than manslaughter or [sowing] corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind’ (Al-Ma’idah:32).”
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml
See also Qaradawi's web-site: www.qaradawi.net

Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i, supreme jurist-ruler of Iran:

“Killing of people, in any place and with any kind of weapons, including atomic bombs, long-range missiles, biological or chemical weopons, passenger or war planes, carried out by any organization, country or individuals is condemned. ... It makes no difference whether such massacres happen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Qana, Sabra, Shatila, Deir Yassin, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or in New York and Washington.”
Islamic Republic News Agency, September 16, 2001, http://www.irna.com/en/hphoto/010916000000.ehp.shtml

President Muhammad Khatami of Iran:

“The horrific terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in the United States were perpetrated by cult of fanatics who had self-mutilated their ears and tongues, and could only communicate with perceived opponents through carnage and devastation.”
Address to the United Nations General Assembly, November 9, 2001, reported in The New York Times, November 10, 2001, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/10/international/10KHAT.html

League of Arab States:

“The General-Secretariat of the League of Arab States shares with the people and government of the United States of America the feelings of revulsion, horror and shock over the terrorist attacks that ripped through the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, inflicting heavy damage and killing and wounding thousands of many nationalities. These terrorist crimes have been viewed by the League as inadmissible and deserving all condemnation. Divergence of views between the Arabs and the United States over the latter’s foreign policy on the Middle East crisis does in no way adversely affect the common Arab attitude of compassion with the people and government of the United States at such moments of facing the menace and ruthlessness of international terrorism. In more than one statement released since the horrendous attacks, the League has also expressed deep sympathy with the families of the victims. In remarks to newsmen immediately following the tragic events, Arab League Secretary-General Amre Moussa described the feelings of the Arab world as demonstrably sympathetic with the American people, particularly with families and individuals who lost their loved ones. “It is indeed tormenting that any country or people or city anywhere in the world be the scene of such disastrous attacks,” he added. While convinced that it is both inconceivable and lamentable that such a large-scale, organised terrorist campaign take place anywhere, anytime, the League believes that the dreadful attacks against WTC and the Pentagon unveil, time and again, that the cancer of terrorism can be extensively damaging if left unchecked. It follows that there is a pressing and urgent need to combat world terrorism. In this context, an earlier call by [Egyptian] President Hosni Mubarak for convening an international conference to draw up universal accord on ways and means to eradicate this phenomenon and demonstrate international solidarity is worthy of active consideration. The Arabs have walked a large distancein the fight against cross-border terrorism by concluding in April 1998 the Arab Agreement on Combating Terrorism.”
September 17, 2001, http://www.leagueofarabstates.org/E_Perspectives_17_09_01.asp

Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference:

“Following the bloody attacks against major buildings and installations in the United States yesterday, Tuesday, September 11, 2001, Dr. Abdelouahed Belkeziz, secretary-general of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), stated that he was shocked and deeply saddened when he heard of those attacks which led to the death and injury of a very large number of innocent American citizens. Dr. Belkeziz said he was denouncing and condemning those criminal and brutal acts that ran counter to all covenants, humanitarian values and divine religions foremost among which was Islam.”
Press Release, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, September 12, 2001, http://www.oic-oci.org/press/english/september%202001/america%20on%20attack.htm

Organization of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers:

“The Conference strongly condemned the brutal terror acts that befell the United States, caused huge losses in human lives from various nationalities and wreaked tremendous destruction and damage in New York and Washington. It further reaffirmed that these terror acts ran counter to the teachings of the divine religions as well as ethical and human values, stressed the necessity of tracking down the perpetrators of these acts in the light of the results of investigations and bringing them to justice to inflict on them the penalty they deserve, and underscored its support of this effort. In this respect, the Conference expressed its condolences to and sympathy with the people and government of the United States and the families of the victims in these mournful and tragic circumstances.”
Final Communique of the Ninth Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, October 10, 2001, http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/All%20Download/frmex9.htm

Mehmet Nuri Yilmaz, Head of the Directorate of Religious Affairs of Turkey:

“Any human being, regardless of his ethnic and religious origin, will never think of carrying out such a violent, evil attack. Whatever its purpose is, this action cannot be justified and tolerated.”
Mehmet Nuri Yilmaz, “A Message on Ragaib Night and Terrorism,” September 21, 2001, http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/duyurular/regaibing.htm

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar), Turkish author:

“Islam does not encourage any kind of terrorism; in fact, it denounces it. Those who use terrorism in the name of Islam, in fact, have no other faculty except ignorance and hatred.”
Harun Yahya, “Islam Denounces Terrorism,” http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi, Pakistani-American Muslim leader:

“The sudden barbaric attack on innocent citizens living in peace is extremely distressing and deplorable. Every gentle human heart goes out to the victims of this attack and as humans we are ashamed at the barbarism perpetrated by a few people. Islam, which is a religion of peace and tolerance, condemns this act and sees this is as a wounding scar on the face of humanity. I appeal to Muslims to strongly condemn this act, express unity with the victims' relatives, donate blood, money and do whatever it takes to help the affected people.”
“Messages From Shaikh Muhammad Yusuf Islahi,” http://www.icna.org/wtc_islahi.htm

Abdal-Hakim Murad, British Muslim author:

“Targeting civilians is a negation of every possible school of Sunni Islam. Suicide bombing is so foreign to the Quranic ethos that the Prophet Samson is entirely absent from our scriptures.”
“The Hijackers Were Not Muslims After All: Recapturing Islam From the Terrorists,” http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/masud/ISLAM/ahm/recapturing.htm

Syed Mumtaz Ali, President of the Canadian Society of Muslims:

“We condemn in the strongest terms possible what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Canadians in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.”
Canadian Society of Muslims, Media Release, September 12, 2001, http://muslim-canada.org/news09112001.html

15 American Muslim organizations:

“We reiterate our unequivocal condemnation of the crime committed on September 11, 2001 and join our fellow Americans in mourning the loss of up to 6000 innocent civilians.”
Muslim American Society (MAS), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim Student Association (MSA), Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), Solidarity International, American Muslims for Global Peace and Justice (AMGPJ), American Muslim Alliance (AMA), United Muslim Americans Association (UMAA), Islamic Media Foundation (IMF), American Muslim Foundation (AMF), Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO), American Muslims for Jerusalem (AMJ), Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), October 22, 2001, http://www.icna.org/wtc_pr.htm

[IlyaFurman]

American Muslim Political Coordination Council:

“American Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.”
http://capwiz.com/cair/issues/alert/?alertid=49818&type=CU&azip=

Dr. Agha Saeed, National Chair of the American Muslim Alliance:

“These attacks are against both divine and human laws and we condemn them in the strongest terms. The Muslim Americans join the nation in calling for swift apprehension and stiff punishment of the perpetrators, and offer our sympathies to the victims and their families.”
http://www.amaweb.org/AMA%20Condemns.html

Hamza Yusuf, American Muslim leader:

“Religious zealots of any creed are defeated people who lash out in desperation, and they often do horrific things. And if these people [who committed murder on September 11] indeed are Arabs, Muslims, they're obviously very sick people and I can't even look at it in religious terms. It's politics, tragic politics. There's no Islamic justification for any of it. ... You can't kill innocent people. There's no Islamic declaration of war against the United States. I think every Muslim country except Afghanistan has an embassy in this country. And in Islam, a country where you have embassies is not considered a belligerent country. In Islam, the only wars that are permitted are between armies and they should engage on battlefields and engage nobly. The Prophet Muhammad said, ``Do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people,'' and he mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis. And he said, ``Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies.'' The Hadith, the sayings of the Prophet, say that no one can punish with fire except the lord of fire. It's prohibited to burn anyone in Islam as a punishment. No one can grant these attackers any legitimacy. It was evil.”
San Jose Mercury News, September 15, 2001, http://www0.mercurycenter.com/local/center/isl0916.htm

Nuh Ha Mim Keller, American Muslim author:

“Muslims have nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to hide, and should simply tell people what their scholars and religious leaders have always said: first, that the Wahhabi sect has nothing to do with orthodox Islam, for its lack of tolerance is a perversion of traditional values; and second, that killing civilians is wrong and immoral.”
“Making the World Safe for Terrorism,” September 30, 2001, http://66.34.131.5/ISLAM/nuh/terrorism.htm

Muslims Against Terrorism, a U.S.-based organization:

“As Muslims, we condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Ours is a religion of peace. We are sick and tired of extremists dictating the public face of Islam.”
http://www.muslimsagainstterrorism.org/aboutus.html

Abdulaziz Sachedina, professor of religious studies, University of Virginia:

“New York was grieving. Sorrow covered the horizons. The pain of separation and of missing family members, neighbors, citizens, humans could be felt in every corner of the country. That day was my personal day of “jihad” (“struggle”) - jihad with my pride and my identity as a Muslim. This is the true meaning of jihad – “struggle with one’s own ego and false pride.” I don’t ever recall that I had prayed so earnestly to God to spare attribution of such madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington to the Muslims. I felt the pain and, perhaps for the first time in my entire life, I felt embarrassed at the thought that it could very well be my fellow Muslims who had committed this horrendous act of terrorism. How could these terrorists invoke God’s mercifulness and compassion when they had, through their evil act, put to shame the entire history of this great religion and its culture of toleration?”
“Where Was God on September 11?," http://www.virginia.edu/~soasia/newsletter/Fall01/God.html

Ali Khan, professor of law, Washburn University School of Law:

“To the most learned in the text of the Quran, these verses must be read in the context of many other verses that stipulate the Islamic law of war---a war that the Islamic leader must declare after due consultation with advisers. For the less learned, however, these verses may provide the motivation and even the plot for a merciless strike against a self-chosen enemy.”
“Attack on America: An Islamic Perspective, September 17, 2001, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew29.htm

Muqtedar Khan, assistant professor of political science, Adrian College, Michigan, USA:

“What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values. The fact that even now several Muslim scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad. ... If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act? While encouraging Muslims to struggle against injustice (Al Quran 4:135), Allah also imposes strict rules of engagement. He says in unequivocal terms that to kill an innocent being is like killing entire humanity (Al Quran 5:32). He also encourages Muslims to forgive Jews and Christians if they have committed injustices against us (Al Quran 2:109, 3:159, 5:85).”
“Memo to American Muslims,” October 5, 2001, http://www.ijtihad.org/memo.htm

Dr. Alaa Al-Yousuf, Bahraini economist and political activist:

“On Friday, 14 September [the first Friday prayers after 11 September], almost the whole world expressed its condemnation of the crime and its grief for the bereaved families of the victims. Those who abstained or, even worse, rejoiced, will have joined the terrorists, not in the murder, but in adding to the incalculable damage on the other victims of the atrocity, namely, Islam as a faith, Muslims and Arabs as peoples, and possibly the Palestinian cause. The terrorists and their apologists managed to sully Islam as a faith both in the eyes of many Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”
Interview with the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue, London, http://www.islam21.net/pages/keyissues/key7-6.htm

Dr. S. Parvez Manzoor, Swedish-based Muslim author:

“If these acts of terror indeed have been perpetrated by Muslim radicals or fundamentalists, they have reaped nothing but eternal damnation, shame and ignominy. For nothing, absolutely nothing, could remotely be advanced as an excuse for these barbaric acts. They represent a total negation of Islamic values, an utter disregard of our fiqhi tradition, and a slap in the face of the Ummah. They are in total contrast to what Islamic reason, compassion and faith stand for. Even from the more mundane criteria of common good, the maslaha of the jurists, these acts are treasonous and suicidal. Islamic faith has been so callously and casually sacrificed at the altar of politics, a home-grown politics of parochial causes, primeval passions, self-endorsing piety and messianic terror.”
Interview with the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue, London, http://www.islam21.net/pages/keyissues/key7-6.htm

[IlyaFurman]

Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysian Islamic activist and former deputy prime minister:

“Never in Islam's entire history has the action of so few of its followers caused the religion and its community of believers to be such an abomination in the eyes of others. Millions of Muslims who fled to North America and Europe to escape poverty and persecution at home have become the object of hatred and are now profiled as potential terrorists. And the nascent democratic movements in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorize their critics and dissenters. This is what Mohammed Atta and his fellow terrorists and sponsors have done to Islam and its community worldwide by their murder of innocents at the World Trade Center in New York and the Defense Depart-ment in Washington. The attack must be condemned, and the condemnation must be without reservation.”
Anwar Ibrahim, “Growth of Democracy Is the Answer to Terrorism,” International Herald Tribune, October 11, 2001, http://www.iht.com/articles/35281.htm

Ziauddin Sardar, British Muslim author:

“The failure of Islamic movements is their inability to come to terms with modernity, to give modernity a sustainable home-grown expression. Instead of engaging with the abundant problems that bedevil Muslim lives, the Islamic prescription consists of blind following of narrow pieties and slavish submission to inept obscurantists. Instead of engagement with the wider world, they have made Islam into an ethic of separation, separate under-development, and negation of the rest of the world.”
Ziauddin Sardar, “Islam has become its own enemy,” October 21, 2001, http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,577942,00.html

Khaled Abou El Fadl, Kuwaiti-Egyptian-American legal scholar:

“It would be disingenuous to deny that the Qur'an and other Islamic sources offer possibilities of intolerant interpretation. Clearly these possibilities are exploited by the contemporary puritans and supremacists. But the text does not command such intolerant readings. Historically, Islamic civilization has displayed a remarkable ability to recognize possibilities of tolerance, and to act upon these possibilities.”
Khaled Abou El Fadl, “The Place of Tolerance in Islam: On Reading the Qur'an -- and Misreading It,” Boston Review, December 2001/January 2002, http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR26.6/elfadl.html

See also:

Bernard Haykel, assistant professor of Islamic law at New York University:

“According to Islamic law there are at least six reasons why Bin Laden's barbaric violence cannot fall under the rubric of jihad: 1) Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad, only states can; 2) One cannot kill innocent women and children when conducting a jihad; 3) One cannot kill Muslims in a jihad; 4) One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practise their religion and proselytize Islam; 5) Prominent Muslim jurists around the world have condemned these attacks and their condemnation forms a juristic consensus (ijma') against Bin Laden's actions (This consensus renders his actions un-Islamic); 6) The welfare and interest of the Muslim community (maslaha) is being harmed by Bin Laden's actions and this equally makes them un-Islamic.”
The Dawn newspaper, Karachi, Pakistan, October 8, 2001, http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/08/op.htm#2

See other collections of statements:

Omid Safi, Colgate University, “Scholars of Islam & the Tragedy of Sept. 11th,” http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

Tim Lubin, Washington and Lee University, “Islamic Responses to the Sept. 11 Attack,” http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint/islamonWTC.htm

The Becket Fund, “Osama Bin Laden Hijacked Four Airplanes and a Religion,” October 17, 2001, http://www.becketfund.org/other/MuslimAd.html

Islam for Today, “Muslims Against Terrorism,”
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

[Dantheman]

Originally posted by unbiased
Hi,

For some reason there are very few muslims that are willing to stand up for what they believe in, and argue against their fellow muslims who are clearly violating many rules of their religion.

It amazes me to see the silence on the part of the good muslims as many other muslims call for actions which clearly violate Islam.

Perhaps it has something to do with a lack of solid leadership?
I have no idea.

But there are some good muslims who are willing to stand up and speak out against the Muslims that transgress their religion.

Some of them spoke out against terrorism after the sept 11th attacks.

Unbiased

Well,
Do you think that maybe it's about time that the 'true' Muslims got up off their keesters and did something about this? They haven't listened to anybody else, maybe they'll listen to civilized followers of Muhammad (pbuh). Then again, they may kill you.

I'm not blasting you, Unbiased. You seem to be a sencible(sp?) person. I just don't understand why Muslims are not willing to stand up to this outrageous segment of Islam.

[Micah]

Now if only there were as many public protests against "fake" Muslims as there have been protests against unbiased news reporting or as many appoligists, then we would have something big.

[Dantheman]

IlyaFurman,

you've answered my question fairly. Thank-you. I have one more, though. Which 'Islamic' country(s) is going to help the rest of the world stop Islamic terrorism once and for all? All I've heard is a load of anti-Western rhetoric from the Islamic governments. Are they going to put up, or shut up?

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by Dantheman
IlyaFurman,

you've answered my question fairly. Thank-you. I have one more, though. Which 'Islamic' country(s) is going to help the rest of the world stop Islamic terrorism once and for all? All I've heard is a load of anti-Western rhetoric from the Islamic governments. Are they going to put up, or shut up?

Well, without Pakistan the US woudnt have captured any of the top al queda leaders.

And guess who fought the taliban? It was the Northern Alliance a muslim group.

The problem is that terrorists are more cacapable of taking action than goverments stopping them, how can you say they are not stopping terror, look at israel look at the US they are trying so hard to stop terror with tons of measures, but they really cant stop terrorism, so the muslim countries have the same problem. But they definetly need to do much more than they are doing now, after 9/11 muslim countries are relizing this, and I hope eventually they will clamp down on them.

You hear ONLY anit western rhetoric cause thats all they show you on the televison, BUT there is major anit-western feelings in the Muslim world.

[IlyaFurman]

According to Islamic law there are at least six reasons why Bin Laden's barbaric violence cannot fall under the rubric of jihad:

1) Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad, only states can;

2) One cannot kill innocent women and children when conducting a jihad;

3) One cannot kill Muslims in a jihad;

4) One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practise their religion and proselytize Islam;

5) Prominent Muslim jurists around the world have condemned these attacks and their condemnation forms a juristic consensus (ijma') against Bin Laden's actions (This consensus renders his actions un-Islamic);

6) The welfare and interest of the Muslim community (maslaha) is being harmed by Bin Laden's actions and this equally makes them un-Islamic.”

[Dantheman]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
According to Islamic law there are at least six reasons why Bin Laden's barbaric violence cannot fall under the rubric of jihad:

1) Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad, only states can;

2) One cannot kill innocent women and children when conducting a jihad;

3) One cannot kill Muslims in a jihad;

4) One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practise their religion and proselytize Islam;

5) Prominent Muslim jurists around the world have condemned these attacks and their condemnation forms a juristic consensus (ijma') against Bin Laden's actions (This consensus renders his actions un-Islamic);

6) The welfare and interest of the Muslim community (maslaha) is being harmed by Bin Laden's actions and this equally makes them un-Islamic.”

So....A Jihad cannot be faught in the U.S. nor most of the western countries, right? Why do so many of these groups overlook these 'laws'? What are they not seeing??

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by Dantheman
So....A Jihad cannot be faught in the U.S. nor most of the western countries, right? Why do so many of these groups overlook these 'laws'? What are they not seeing??

I dont know.

But I guess they base their revenge on quotes like "eye for an eye" kind of methodology, or make the koran the way they see it to be.

[Dantheman]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
I dont know.

But I guess they base their revenge on quotes like "eye for an eye" kind of methodology, or make the koran the way they see it to be.

Hate sucks.

[unbiased]

Hi IlyaFurman,

Are you able to provide Islamic references for the two items you mentioned below?

I would be interested in reading about them.

Thanks,
Unbiased


Originally posted by IlyaFurman
\

1) Individuals and organizations cannot declare a jihad, only states can;

4) One cannot fight a jihad against a country in which Muslims can freely practise their religion and proselytize Islam;

.?

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by unbiased
Hi IlyaFurman,

Are you able to provide Islamic references for the two items you mentioned below?

I would be interested in reading about them.

Thanks,
Unbiased

I really dont know what is the bases for it, but this was done after years of reasearch by a well respected professor, Bernard Haykel, assistant professor of Islamic law at New York University.

Sorry I coundt tell you more.

[Ezra]

(1) If Islam does not support 9/11, why Muslims all over the world celebrated the attacks? In Egypt. people were throwing candies, shops were giving free drinks, and taxi drivers were horning their cars.

(2) Does islam support suiside bombing?

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by Ezra
(1) If Islam does not support 9/11, why Muslims all over the world celebrated the attacks? In Egypt. people were throwing candies, shops were giving free drinks, and taxi drivers were horning their cars.

(2) Does islam support suiside bombing?

1) I was in Greece on the day of the attacks and I saw many Greeks celebrating, mexicans were celebrating, brazilians were celebrating, there have been reports on Greek tv that many Europeans were celebrating, It was not only "Muslims" as you would like to think.

2) Suicide is an unforgiviable sin in Islam.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
1) I was in Greece on the day of the attacks and I saw many Greeks celebrating, mexicans were celebrating, brazilians were celebrating, there have been reports on Greek tv that many Europeans were celebrating, It was not only "Muslims" as you would like to think.

2) Suicide is an unforgiviable sin in Islam.


Can you provide documentation for this claim. I am an avid follower of world events and I take in a lot of news, on the street and on the web. But I have never heard mentioned once, what you have claimed in your statement.

It is easy to make off the cuff remarks to bolster your own position, but proving that such things happened will be harder.

In Seattle, WA there were people celebrating and making merry on 911. Do you think that they were therefore just some local Americans happy about the events of the day?

Turns out, they were Somali immigrants. Their behavior was a local scandal. I have a feeling the celebrations in other countries to which you referred are probably of the type that I just mentioned, if they happened at all.

I appreciated the "unforgiveable sin" reference. I wish more Muslims thought that way.

[Mediocrates]

My reading, and please correct me if I'm wrong, of the ethical difference between Judiac and Islamic thoughts on 'and eye for an eye" are this:

In Judaism, if we refer to the mish patim (or civil code) the statement refers to ethical equality. That is, make the punishment fit the crime. One does not execute someone for stealing fruit nor do they get a slap on the wrist for rape.

In Islam, and on this I'm a little sketchy and base this on responses from other people who claim to be be muslims, the statement really talks about transaction parity. If someone does something to you, you do that to him. If someone cuts down your tree, cut down their tree.

If this is true then they really mean two different things.

[reason]

There is a verse in the Quran "No compulsion in religion". It clearly states religion shouldnt be forced on anyone, and anyone who dosnt obey this verse is not doing so in the name of Islam.

What people fail to understand is that Islamic terrorists the likes of Bin laden are flat out lying, and completely making things up. They intentionally distort the pure meanings of the verses just like L@mplighter did, to suit their sick views.That is why the majority of their followers are uneducated fools who cant read!!!These people are wolves in sheep skins, they OUTRIGHT MAKE THINGS UP, and the tragedy is that so few people out side Islam know that and think this is what Islam teaches.

Yes , most muslims in the muslim world are illiterate(due to economic reasons), that is why some of them fall to the likes Osama Bin laden with his twisted tongue and lies. I and many other educated muslims understand what Islam really is, because we can read. Islam is a simple religion, you dont need a priest to explain to you that there is one god , that tells you to do good and not kill people with out due reason.You cant say the same for christianity, I have asked many preists about the trinity and never got a straight forward answer, all they say is"you wont understand because you dont have faith".To me, my reasoning and logic are the only reason to follow a religion, if a religion seems illogical or contradicts reason and science then no amount of faith will change my mind.Faith has nothing to do with it.

Lastly, I would like to add that the Quran has laid many basic laws for the followers, like inheritance laws, rules of war,capital punishment, etc...But there is nothing in the Quran that dosnt allow us to override these rules.For example polygomy, eventhough polygomy is acceptable in Islam(four wives maximum), goverments who find it suitable can enforce more rules to limit the number of wives to one, but they cant put laws that make it possible for 10 wives.To further clarify , the Quran sets the upper limits of the rules, the quran sets the maximum penalty for stealing three times is cutting a hand, so you cant kill a person who stole, but you can put more lenient laws like imprisonment.The quranic laws are flexible , setting the upper limits and allowing the people and goverments to choose their limits.

Many quranic shcolars eventhough they can read and write are still uneducated, because many of them have never taken any Math/science classes that make a person more "enlightened", thus their interpretation tend to be more on the primitive side. In the middle ages, when Islam was the pinnacle of knowledge, the Quranic scholars were always math/chemistry/physics scholars as well, that in my opinion makes a huge difference.

These are cut/pastes of some of my old posts which I hopw answer some of your questions regarding , why some muslims are silent.

[Ezra]

There is a verse in the Quran "No compulsion in religion". It clearly states religion shouldnt be forced on anyone, and anyone who dosnt obey this verse is not doing so in the name of Islam.

If so, why can't a Muslim convert to any other religion without applying Had El-Reddah on him? (i.e. killing him).

What people fail to understand is that Islamic terrorists the likes of Bin laden are flat out lying, and completely making things up. They intentionally distort the pure meanings of the verses just like L@mplighter did, to suit their sick views.That is why the majority of their followers are uneducated fools who cant read!!!These people are wolves in sheep skins, they OUTRIGHT MAKE THINGS UP, and the tragedy is that so few people out side Islam know that and think this is what Islam teaches.

And I got you proofs that Al-Mufti in Egypt support suicide bombing. Is he also sick? Are all the Muslims who cheered for 9/11 sick?
Are all the Muslims who cheered for suicide bombing sick?
Fine fine. I'm sick.
L@mplighter is sick.
Everyone here in the forum is sick.
I dared you to send to Al-Azhar and ask him you ignored that.
I dared you to send your opinions to the Arabic forum and you ignored that.
What else can I say?

Yes , most muslims in the muslim world are illiterate(due to economic reasons), that is why some of them fall to the likes Osama Bin laden with his twisted tongue and lies.

How about suicide bombing?
And the Olama in Azhar is illiterate?
Al Mufti is illiterate?
The people in the Arabic forum I sent are illiterate?

I and many other educated muslims understand what Islam really is, because we can read. Islam is a simple religion, you dont need a priest to explain to you that there is one god , that tells you to do good and not kill people with out due reason.You cant say the same for christianity, I have asked many preists about the trinity and never got a straight forward answer, all they say is"you wont understand because you dont have faith".To me, my reasoning and logic are the only reason to follow a religion, if a religion seems illogical or contradicts reason and science then no amount of faith will change my mind.Faith has nothing to do with it.

Same old crab. Oh yeh, sure sure. Fine Fine, and I showed you some of the opinions in a moderate Islamic forum, why didn't you dare to go and correct their views?

Lastly, I would like to add that the Quran has laid many basic laws for the followers, like inheritance laws, rules of war,capital punishment, etc...But there is nothing in the Quran that dosnt allow us to override these rules.For example polygomy, eventhough polygomy is acceptable in Islam(four wives maximum), goverments who find it suitable can enforce more rules to limit the number of wives to one, but they cant put laws that make it possible for 10 wives.To further clarify , the Quran sets the upper limits of the rules, the quran sets the maximum penalty for stealing three times is cutting a hand, so you cant kill a person who stole, but you can put more lenient laws like imprisonment.The quranic laws are flexible , setting the upper limits and allowing the people and goverments to choose their limits.

And I asked you very straightly, do you mean you can allow what God perhibited? Or perhibit what God allow? You also didn't answer to that.
I told you let's ask the people who spent their lives studying Islam about their opinion in that, and again you ignored that.

Many quranic shcolars eventhough they can read and write are still uneducated, because many of them have never taken any Math/science classes that make a person more "enlightened", thus their interpretation tend to be more on the primitive side. In the middle ages, when Islam was the pinnacle of knowledge, the Quranic scholars were always math/chemistry/physics scholars as well, that in my opinion makes a huge difference.

What does mathematic has to do with understanding religion? And by the way, the Feqh, Sharee'a, and all other kind of religion studies are much more complicated than mathematic!
Fine fine. You want "educated" persons? The Azhar olama are extremely educated. They are all holding Masters and PhD degree. What more education do you want? They have one of the best Engineering School in Egypt, but you still refused to ask them about the orders of Koraan about the issues we are debating. Why are you contradicting youself?

These are cut/pastes of some of my old posts which I hopw answer some of your questions regarding , why some muslims are silent.

You haven't answered anything.

Mr. reason, non of your acts actually proves that you are convinced with what you are saying. Actually, all your acts prove that you are just saying what are you saying about Islam for the purpose of deceiving only, whereas you are personally not convinced with any of it. After what we saw from Mr. Dodo (or Fair) we have a very strong reason to believe that your target is mainly deceiving the forum and polishing the ugly face of Islam.

[IlyaFurman]

Islam is a Unique realion in which it talks about military issues, no other religion touches on that as much as Islam, it tells you what to do and how far to go, and how to fight in war, this is why many people like EZRA take advantage of these war passages to their advantage.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
My reading, and please correct me if I'm wrong, of the ethical difference between Judiac and Islamic thoughts on 'and eye for an eye" are this:

In Judaism, if we refer to the mish patim (or civil code) the statement refers to ethical equality. That is, make the punishment fit the crime. One does not execute someone for stealing fruit nor do they get a slap on the wrist for rape.

In Islam, and on this I'm a little sketchy and base this on responses from other people who claim to be be muslims, the statement really talks about transaction parity. If someone does something to you, you do that to him. If someone cuts down your tree, cut down their tree.

If this is true then they really mean two different things.

It is the same in Islam, Chrisitanity, and Judaism in my opinion.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by MichaelC
Can you provide documentation for this claim. I am an avid follower of world events and I take in a lot of news, on the street and on the web. But I have never heard mentioned once, what you have claimed in your statement.

I appreciated the "unforgiveable sin" reference. I wish more Muslims thought that way.

Well im not Muslim, but I was talking to a Islamic scholar, and he said one of the rare unforgivable sins in Islam is suicide, but im sure terroists find a loop hole in religious teaching to commit these acts. For example they might say they are persecuted and they have no other means to defend themselves.

[Dantheman]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
It is the same in Islam, Chrisitanity, and Judaism in my opinion.

You don't know a lot about Christianity, do you?

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by Dantheman
You don't know a lot about Christianity, do you?

ok then what does the eye for an eye quote mean?

[Dantheman]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
ok then what does the eye for an eye quote mean?

Exactly what it says. However, Christians believe they are under grace, not law.

Eye for an eye is OT. Christians use the NT.

[reason]

Originally posted by Ezra
If so, why can't a Muslim convert to any other religion without applying Had El-Reddah on him? (i.e. killing him).

Why did Hitler kill all jews?Why did the inqusitions kill all non christians?Why did the crusades take place?



And I got you proofs that Al-Mufti in Egypt support suicide bombing. Is he also sick? Are all the Muslims who cheered for 9/11 sick?
Are all the Muslims who cheered for suicide bombing sick?
Fine fine. I'm sick.
L@mplighter is sick.
Everyone here in the forum is sick.
I dared you to send to Al-Azhar and ask him you ignored that.
I dared you to send your opinions to the Arabic forum and you ignored that.
What else can I say?

If he supports suicide bombing then yes sheik al-azhar is sick.
All the people who celebrate suicide bombings are sick, but they are not muslims to begin with!
"Fine fine. I'm sick"
Why?do you celebrate murder?
Since you want me to send my opinions to the Arabic forum, why dont you send your opinions to the aryan race supremacy sites, where they believe only white christians are true christians.
"What else can I say?"
Nothing because you have nothing.


How about suicide bombing?
And the Olama in Azhar is illiterate?
Al Mufti is illiterate?
The people in the Arabic forum I sent are illiterate?

Is the pope who stayed silent while hitler killed 6million jews illiterate?Where the Inqusitions illiterate?Where the conquistadores illiterate?Are the KKK illiterate?

Same old crab. Oh yeh, sure sure. Fine Fine, and I showed you some of the opinions in a moderate Islamic forum, why didn't you dare to go and correct their views?

Then you go correct the KKK views, and the aryan supermacy site views, wait you cant, oh thats right they will curse at you and regard you as inferior.


And I asked you very straightly, do you mean you can allow what God perhibited? Or perhibit what God allow? You also didn't answer to that.
I told you let's ask the people who spent their lives studying Islam about their opinion in that, and again you ignored that.

No you cant allow what god prohibited, but yes you can prohibit what god allowed. I answered this question before and gave you an example of tunisia where they prohibit polygamy.I spent my life studying religion, and I gave you my straight forward opinion.



What does mathematic has to do with understanding religion? And by the way, the Feqh, Sharee'a, and all other kind of religion studies are much more complicated than mathematic!
Fine fine. You want "educated" persons? The Azhar olama are extremely educated. They are all holding Masters and PhD degree. What more education do you want? They have one of the best Engineering School in Egypt, but you still refused to ask them about the orders of Koraan about the issues we are debating. Why are you contradicting youself?

If you think religion is more complex that mathematics then you havent seen the mathematics used in quantum mechanics.You dont know what your talking about.The azhar olama are not educated, they hold masters and phDs in religious studies and comparative religions.Yes Al-Azhar has a good engineering school, but the Imams dont go to engineering schools they go to Al-Azhar religious school.Its like you saying that any one who graduates from the trinity college(where they teach engineering and other science classes, besides religion) here in sanantonio is automatically a priest.

You haven't answered anything.

This is your opinion, Im sure.
Mr. reason, non of your acts actually proves that you are convinced with what you are saying. Actually, all your acts prove that you are just saying what are you saying about Islam for the purpose of deceiving only, whereas you are personally not convinced with any of it. After what we saw from Mr. Dodo (or Fair) we have a very strong reason to believe that your target is mainly deceiving the forum and polishing the ugly face of Islam.

I dont want to convince you of anything. And yes there is deceiving here but its not from my side.Islam might be ugly in your opinion but 1.5 billion followers of this graceful religion dont think so.Islam is here to stay, thats a fact.If your not part of the reconciliation then you will be left behind, because there is no other alternative than for you to let go of the hate.

[Ezra]

Originally posted by reason
I dont want to convince you of anything. And yes there is deceiving here but its not from my side.Islam might be ugly in your opinion but 1.5 billion followers of this graceful religion dont think so.Islam is here to stay, thats a fact.If your not part of the reconciliation then you will be left behind, because there is no other alternative than for you to let go of the hate.


Don't just answer general useless answers.

If you have something useful to say, take my reply point by point and reply to them.

[reason]

Originally posted by Ezra
Don't just answer general useless answers.

If you have something useful to say, take my reply point by point and reply to them.

Look again before you make assumptions, I replied to every point you made. This is typical of your behaviour on these boards, make accustaions first with out taking the time to study them. Look between the quotes, now if this was a professional debate forum, you would apologize . You owe me two apologizes one for this and one for accusing Ilya and me of being the same person.I will not waste my time on you until you apologize, I let the first one go, but this has become a pattern.

[Ezra]

Originally posted by reason
Look again before you make assumptions, I replied to every point you made. This is typical of your behaviour on these boards, make accustaions first with out taking the time to study them. Look between the quotes, now if this was a professional debate forum, you would apologize . You owe me two apologizes one for this and one for accusing Ilya and me of being the same person.I will not waste my time on you until you apologize, I let the first one go, but this has become a pattern.

I just saw now. I, however, will not apologize because (with my all respect) that's a very stupid way to post a reply!

Do you really think that anyone will believe that you will not answer because you are mad? Give me a break! Don't make fool of yourself! Just say that you can't answer, and that's it.

[Ezra]

If so, why can't a Muslim convert to any other religion without applying Had El-Reddah on him? (i.e. killing him).

Why did Hitler kill all jews?Why did the inqusitions kill all non christians?Why did the crusades take place?

Please reply to my question directly. You can always open a new thread to discuss your question, but for now, just answer my question directly.

And I got you proofs that Al-Mufti in Egypt support suicide bombing. Is he also sick? Are all the Muslims who cheered for 9/11 sick?
Are all the Muslims who cheered for suicide bombing sick?
Fine fine. I'm sick.
L@mplighter is sick.
Everyone here in the forum is sick.
I dared you to send to Al-Azhar and ask him you ignored that.
I dared you to send your opinions to the Arabic forum and you ignored that.
What else can I say?

If he supports suicide bombing then yes sheik al-azhar is sick.

How come when he spent at least 50 years of his life studying Islam? And of course needless to say the Oolama in the Azhar? All of them are sicks? I would agree if you said that "Islam point of view about this issue" is sick, but saying that they are the ones who are sick, I don't agree.

All the people who celebrate suicide bombings are sick, but they are not muslims to begin with!

Well, guess what? They are all Muslims!

"Fine fine. I'm sick"
Why?do you celebrate murder?
Since you want me to send my opinions to the Arabic forum, why dont you send your opinions to the aryan race supremacy sites, where they believe only white christians are true christians.

So simple. Because they don't form an opinion supported by 1 billion person. The opinions in the forum that I sent are the ones which is supported by 1 billion muslims.

How about suicide bombing?
And the Olama in Azhar is illiterate?
Al Mufti is illiterate?
The people in the Arabic forum I sent are illiterate?

Is the pope who stayed silent while hitler killed 6million jews illiterate?Where the Inqusitions illiterate?Where the conquistadores illiterate?Are the KKK illiterate?

Again, please answer my questions. If you want to discuss the questions you mentioned, we can always open a new thread for that.
The people in the Arabic forum I sent you, are considered very moderate. KKK are not.
The people in the Arabic forum I sent you have opinions supported by 1 billion Muslims. KKK are not.
If you want to mention KKK, then we should compare it to Jihad.com, right?

Same old crab. Oh yeh, sure sure. Fine Fine, and I showed you some of the opinions in a moderate Islamic forum, why didn't you dare to go and correct their views?

Then you go correct the KKK views, and the aryan supermacy site views, wait you cant, oh thats right they will curse at you and regard you as inferior.

Read above.

And I asked you very straightly, do you mean you can allow what God perhibited? Or perhibit what God allow? You also didn't answer to that.
I told you let's ask the people who spent their lives studying Islam about their opinion in that, and again you ignored that.

No you cant allow what god prohibited, but yes you can prohibit what god allowed. I answered this question before and gave you an example of tunisia where they prohibit polygamy.I spent my life studying religion, and I gave you my straight forward opinion.


Didn't I tell you: you either a professional liar, or you know nothing about Islam. Enjoy:

[66:1] O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts but Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[5:87] O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess; for Allah loveth not those given to excess.

[10:59] Say: "See ye what things Allah hath sent down to you for sustenance? Yet ye hold forbidden some things thereof and (some things) lawful." Say: "Hath Allah indeed permitted you, or do ye invent (things) to attribute to Allah?"

[16:116] But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth - "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.

What does mathematic has to do with understanding religion? And by the way, the Feqh, Sharee'a, and all other kind of religion studies are much more complicated than mathematic!
Fine fine. You want "educated" persons? The Azhar olama are extremely educated. They are all holding Masters and PhD degree. What more education do you want? They have one of the best Engineering School in Egypt, but you still refused to ask them about the orders of Koraan about the issues we are debating. Why are you contradicting youself?

If you think religion is more complex that mathematics then you havent seen the mathematics used in quantum mechanics.You dont know what your talking about.The azhar olama are not educated, they hold masters and phDs in religious studies and comparative religions.Yes Al-Azhar has a good engineering school, but the Imams dont go to engineering schools they go to Al-Azhar religious school.Its like you saying that any one who graduates from the trinity college(where they teach engineering and other science classes, besides religion) here in sanantonio is automatically a priest.

Who said? A lot of the Olama in the Azhar has undergrad degrees in MD or Engineering then they made graduate studies in Koleyyet El-Sahree'a.

[reason]

"Didn't I tell you: you either a professional liar, or you know nothing about Islam. Enjoy:

[66:1] O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts but Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[5:87] O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess; for Allah loveth not those given to excess.

[10:59] Say: "See ye what things Allah hath sent down to you for sustenance? Yet ye hold forbidden some things thereof and (some things) lawful." Say: "Hath Allah indeed permitted you, or do ye invent (things) to attribute to Allah?"

[16:116] But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth - "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper."

Since this is the only part of your post that resembles any kind of logic ill reply to it.

The first verse is talking to the prophet, not me and not the goverments. Enough said.

The second verse is taken out of context, the verse after it says"[5:88] And eat from the good and lawful things that GOD has provided for you. You shall reverence GOD, in whom you are believers.", so its clearer now that god was talking about food and sure enough the Chapter is called THE FEAST.I dont know how you concluded from that verse anything other than god wants us to eat what he allowed and not eat what he prohibits?

The third verse says,[10:59] Say: "See ye what things Allah hath sent down to you for sustenance? Yet ye hold forbidden some things thereof and (some things) lawful." Say: "Hath Allah indeed permitted you, or do ye invent (things) to attribute to Allah?"

Rizq in arabic is money, food or other provisions that provide sustenance for a person, the basic commodities if you will.Now how do you Ezra interpret this verse any other way, but the way it is stated?

These are the verses before the fourth verse,
[16:114] Therefore, you shall eat from GOD's provisions everything that is lawful and good, and be appreciative of GOD's blessings, if you do worship Him alone.
16:115] He only prohibits for you dead animals, blood, the meat of pigs*, and food which is dedicated to other than GOD. If one is forced (to eat these), without being deliberate or malicious, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

Hmmm could he be speaking about food?


Ezra if you want to have any credibility please post the whole verse. Ezra you dont have any integrity, because you are intentionally distorting the meanings of these verses to suit your needs.You have become the person you so dispise, like osama bin laden twisting your tongue with lies about things you dont know.And to prove it to this board that you are a man with no integrity.You refuse to apologize to me after accusing me of being the same person as Ilya, and refuse to apologize for not reading my post as a whole and jumping to faulty conclusions.Ezra any person decent enough to recognize his mistake would have apologized, but that shows how hate has just turned into a bitter man.

[Miriam]

Originally posted by unbiased
Here is a logical proof using quotes from the muslim holy scriptures that demonstrates that Islam does not condone or justify terrorist attacks such as those seen on sept 11th nor those seen in Moscow by the Chechens.

[...]

Clearly regardless of their goals, the chechen rebels and the 9/11 attackers were terrorists, and they have gone astray from the
teachings of Islam.

They should not be praised for their acts, but punished and shamed for their unIslamic terrorist acts.

Peace to everyone!
Unbiased That's nice, but you have omitted the Palestinians. Carelessness or purpose?

Or, to judge by IlyaFurman's quotes, is it the current stand of Islamic thought that murdering Americans and Russians (which the Chechens, it looks, actually didn't do) isn't kosher (they are both superpowers, you know), but never mind the Israelis? I have yet to hear an explicit Islamic ruling against Palestinian terrorism, let alone organised action by Moslems.

[Ezra]

[66:1] O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts but Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

The first verse is talking to the prophet, not me and not the goverments. Enough said.

So, The Prophet is not allowed to forbid what Allah allowed, but you are allowed?

Do you really think anyone can believe this logic?

Still waiting for your reply on the other points.

[reason]

Originally posted by Ezra

So, The Prophet is not allowed to forbid what Allah allowed, but you are allowed?

Do you really think anyone can believe this logic?

Still waiting for your reply on the other points.


What other points? You made no points and if you think I am going to reply to your nonsense you are fooling yourself.Funny that you would be talking about logic, lets see the logic that is in the Bible shall we?

IN GENESIS are two contradictory stories of creation. In Genesis 1:20 & 21, "every living creature" is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl." But in 2:19 God brings forth "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" from dry ground.

1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven"
1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Is that your logic?

In Genesis 1:2, earth comes into existence on the first day, completely underwater. Only by the 3rd day were waters of the deep collected, and dry land formed. But in Genesis 2:4, 5, & 6, earth on the first day was dry land, unwatered.

1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
2:6 "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

The first story has trees made on the 3rd day and man formed 3 days later (1:12-13 and 26-31). In the second version man was made before trees (2:7, 9). If chapter 1 is true, then fowls were created before man. If chapter 2 is true, then they were created after man.

Version one teaches man was created after all beasts. The second is clear, Adam was created before beasts. (1:25,27 versus 2:7,19).

In version one, man and woman are created simultaneously (1:27) while in version two (2:7,20-22), man and woman are separate acts of creation

1:12 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
1:13 "And the evening and the morning were the third day."
1:25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
1:26"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. "
1:28" And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. "
1:29 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. "
1:30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. "
1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day "
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Or is this what you call logic?

[unbiased]

Hi Ezra,

1)Why did they celebrate?
Because those who celebrated are people who don't really understand or truly worship their religion.

Their celebration proves that they are sinners against their religion.

2) Islam absolutely does not support suicide bombing.
Only "Islamic" people who sin against their religion support suicide bombing. Their religion says it is a sin.

Talk to you later,
Unbiased

Originally posted by Ezra
(1) If Islam does not support 9/11, why Muslims all over the world celebrated the attacks? In Egypt. people were throwing candies, shops were giving free drinks, and taxi drivers were horning their cars.

(2) Does islam support suiside bombing?

[unbiased]

Hi,

Well...certainly the same applies to the suicide bombers in palestine.

Islam does not support terrorism by them either.

I can also add from the quo'ran:
"Do not kill yourselves." [4:29]

Unbiased

Originally posted by Miriam
That's nice, but you have omitted the Palestinians. Carelessness or purpose?

Or, to judge by IlyaFurman's quotes, is it the current stand of Islamic thought that murdering Americans and Russians (which the Chechens, it looks, actually didn't do) isn't kosher (they are both superpowers, you know), but never mind the Israelis? I have yet to hear an explicit Islamic ruling against Palestinian terrorism, let alone organised action by Moslems.

[unbiased]

And all of the war passages either directly state that civilians are not to be targeted intentionally, or they stand side by side with quotes that say it is a sin against islam to intentionally target civilians.

Unbiased

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
Islam is a Unique realion in which it talks about military issues, no other religion touches on that as much as Islam, it tells you what to do and how far to go, and how to fight in war, this is why many people like EZRA take advantage of these war passages to their advantage.

[Ezra]

Originally posted by reason
What other points? You made no points and if you think I am going to reply to your nonsense you are fooling yourself.Funny that you would be talking about logic, lets see the logic that is in the Bible shall we?

IN GENESIS are two contradictory stories of creation. In Genesis 1:20 & 21, "every living creature" is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl." But in 2:19 God brings forth "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" from dry ground.

1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven"
1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Is that your logic?

In Genesis 1:2, earth comes into existence on the first day, completely underwater. Only by the 3rd day were waters of the deep collected, and dry land formed. But in Genesis 2:4, 5, & 6, earth on the first day was dry land, unwatered.

1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"
2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
2:6 "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

The first story has trees made on the 3rd day and man formed 3 days later (1:12-13 and 26-31). In the second version man was made before trees (2:7, 9). If chapter 1 is true, then fowls were created before man. If chapter 2 is true, then they were created after man.

Version one teaches man was created after all beasts. The second is clear, Adam was created before beasts. (1:25,27 versus 2:7,19).

In version one, man and woman are created simultaneously (1:27) while in version two (2:7,20-22), man and woman are separate acts of creation

1:12 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
1:13 "And the evening and the morning were the third day."
1:25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
1:26"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. "
1:28" And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. "
1:29 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. "
1:30 "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. "
1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day "
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Or is this what you call logic?

You couldn't reply to the questions about your Koraan so you went to the Bible?

What does you post have to do with the topic?

You can't justify your Koraan so now you are using a new strategy?

Why don't you reply to the question I asked about Koraan? You can always open a new thread for whatever you want to discuss, right?

[Ezra]

Originally posted by Ezra
So, The Prophet is not allowed to forbid what Allah allowed, but you are allowed?

Do you really think anyone can believe this logic?

Still waiting for your reply on the other points.

Here is my question once again. Please answer directly. (that's if you can).

[IlyaFurman]

This is one of the Quotes about suicide in the Quran, if you read it, it is certainly not a good thing.

"O ye who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities: But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily God hath been to you Most Merciful! If any do that In rancour and injustice -- Soon shall We cast them Into the Fire: and easy It is for Allah. (The Noble Quran, 4:29-30)"

[reason]

Originally posted by Ezra
Here is my question once again. Please answer directly. (that's if you can).

And my reply to you was very relevant. My question was , what do you mean by logic?Is it the same logic that could be found in the Bible?Please dont go off topic and answer the questions.

But let me answer your question more directly YES.Now your turn please answer my questions ;).

[Ezra]

Originally posted by reason
And my reply to you was very relevant. My question was , what do you mean by logic?Is it the same logic that could be found in the Bible?Please dont go off topic and answer the questions.

But let me answer your question more directly YES.Now your turn please answer my questions ;).

I'll be so happy to open a new topic about logic in the Bible. On the matter of fact, I'd love if you did that RIGHT NOW.

NOW YOU ARE STILL PLAYING GAMES AND ESCAPING FROM ANSWERING ME...

So, The Prophet is not allowed to forbid what Allah allowed, but you are allowed?

Do you really think anyone can believe this logic?

[reason]

Originally posted by Ezra
I'll be so happy to open a new topic about logic in the Bible. On the matter of fact, I'd love if you did that RIGHT NOW.

NOW YOU ARE STILL PLAYING GAMES AND ESCAPING FROM ANSWERING ME...

So, The Prophet is not allowed to forbid what Allah allowed, but you are allowed?

Do you really think anyone can believe this logic?

YES (I already answered it before) if its hard for you to comprehend the concept of Y-E-S then no wonder your ancestors didnt invent cr*p (oops or did they? hahaha ).Now if you can get it through your cantelope brain that maybe god was talking to the prophet (for whatever reason) and he is not talking to us and it would be blasphemy to say otherwise.Dont apply your logic here because you have none.

God forgive me Im turning into an Ezra day after day.

[Ezra]

Originally posted by reason
YES (I already answered it before) if its hard for you to comprehend the concept of Y-E-S then no wonder your ancestors didnt invent cr*p (oops or did they? hahaha ).Now if you can get it through your cantelope brain that maybe god was talking to the prophet (for whatever reason) and he is not talking to us and it would be blasphemy to say otherwise.Dont apply your logic here because you have none.

God forgive me Im turning into an Ezra day after day.

Yes??????????

Hahahah.. ok ok.. Thanks.. You just proved a very important to the forum here!

[reason]

Originally posted by Ezra
Yes??????????

Hahahah.. ok ok.. Thanks.. You just proved a very important to the forum here!

Im not going to even try deciphering that sentence.

[Miriam]

Originally posted by unbiased
Hi,

Well...certainly the same applies to the suicide bombers in palestine.

Islam does not support terrorism by them either.

I can also add from the quo'ran:
"Do not kill yourselves." [4:29]

Unbiased [/B] Hi!

First, a disclaimer: I hate Ezra's posts and all this "Islam does this and that" stuff.

Second, an IMO much more justified question: a considerable number of Muslims enjoy all the advantages of Western democracies. Why don't we see a single Muslim group picketing, say, the local Hamas office?

Again, I consider religious bashing not just tasteless but also absurd in the given context. Any 1000+ year old text can be interpreted in zillions of ways. It's the interpreter who is responsible and his motivations may be not exactly of divine inspiration. Here (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=896) is a gentleman I wouldn't mind seeing shot for one. As far as I am concerned, he is abusing what he claims to be his religion in order to spread hate - and, I guess, to achieve political power.

So, religious teachings aside, why are - in your opinion - most Muslims so curiously silent about the brutal Paleistinian terrorism? Even you yourself. I appreciate your posts, but don't you think it's a bit strange to mention Chechen and Al-Qaeda terrorism on a site dedicated to Israel and leave the Palestinian one out, until prompted to do so?

[unbiased]

Hi Miriam,

Shesh! I never intended to anyway say that terrorism in Israel was any different than that done in moscow or in america.

The entire post started on another message board in response to someone claiming that allah would praise the terrorists in moscow.

Call me lazy for only including moscow and america...

All the laws of Islam still apply when it comes to palestinian terrorists.

Perhaps I did not include israel in the proof because I did not want the conversation to be obscured by the issue of israeli occupation of the west bank and gaza (which I personally do not agree with).
Regardless, all of the laws of Islam still apply, and the suicide bombers are just as much terrorists, and just as sinful against Islam as the terrorists in moscow and in america.

I think most good muslims are silent because many 1) agree with the ends that the terrorism is trying to achieve and 2) they for some reason would rather sacrifice their religion than to have to face restraining and opposing muslims who are clearly sinning against their religion. Many feel that the worse muslim is better than the best non-muslim and regardless of how evil that muslim may be, they fear that if they oppose them, that they might go to hell.
I'm not saying it is right, but that is my understanding as far as I have seen...

Unbiased

Originally posted by Miriam
Hi!

First, a disclaimer: I hate Ezra's posts and all this "Islam does this and that" stuff.

Second, an IMO much more justified question: a considerable number of Muslims enjoy all the advantages of Western democracies. Why don't we see a single Muslim group picketing, say, the local Hamas office?

Again, I consider religious bashing not just tasteless but also absurd in the given context. Any 1000+ year old text can be interpreted in zillions of ways. It's the interpreter who is responsible and his motivations may be not exactly of divine inspiration. Here (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=896) is a gentleman I wouldn't mind seeing shot for one. As far as I am concerned, he is abusing what he claims to be his religion in order to spread hate - and, I guess, to achieve political power.

So, religious teachings aside, why are - in your opinion - most Muslims so curiously silent about the brutal Paleistinian terrorism? Even you yourself. I appreciate your posts, but don't you think it's a bit strange to mention Chechen and Al-Qaeda terrorism on a site dedicated to Israel and leave the Palestinian one out, until prompted to do so?

[abu afak]

STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ibn Warraq is the author of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the stupefying enormity of the acts of barbarism of 11 September, moral outrage is appropriate and justified, as are demands for punishment. But a civilized society cannot permit blind attacks on all those perceived as “Muslims” or Arabs. Not all Muslims or all Arabs are terrorists. Nor are they implicated in the horrendous events of Tuesday. Police protection for individual Muslims, mosques and other institutions must be increased.

However, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with Terrorist Tuesday is to wilfully ignore the obvious and to forever misinterpret events. Without Islam the long-term strategy and individual acts of violence by Usama bin Laden and his followers make little sense. The West needs to understand them in order to be able to deal with them and avoid past mistakes. We are confronted with Islamic terrorists and must take seriously the Islamic component. Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, do not understand the passionate, religious, and anti-western convictions of Islamic terrorists. These God-intoxicated fanatics blindly throw away their lives in return for the Paradise of Seventy Two Virgins offered Muslim martyrs killed in the Holy War against all infidels.

Jihad is “a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of the Prophet Muhammad [the Prophet]. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims”[1].

The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al-Harb becomes the Dar-al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the name of Allah.

We read (IX. 5-6):“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them”;

IV.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”;

VIII.39-42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.”

What should we make with these further unfortunate verses from the Qur’an:

*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
* No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
* No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
* No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
* Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
* God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
* Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
* Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
* The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
* All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62, V.69
* Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers->VIII.12
* Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
* Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
* Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
* Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
* Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to hell too->IV.150-1
* Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
* Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
* Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ; VI.110
* Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran->XVII.45-46
* It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that->XVII.97
* God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
* Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
* Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
* God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
* God deceiving humans->IV.142

It is surely time for us who live in the West and enjoy freedom of expression to examine unflinchingly and unapologetically the tenets of these fanatics, including the Qur’an which divinely sanctions violence. We should unapologetically examine the life of the Prophet, who was not above political assassinations, and who was responsible for the massacre of the Jews.

[abu afak]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by abu afak
[B]STATEMENT BY IBN WARRAQ ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATROCITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ibn Warraq is the author of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2/2

“Ah, but you are confusing Islam with Islamic fundamentalism. The Real Islam has nothing to do with violence,” apologists of Islam argue.

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the Hadith – Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The fundamentalists, with greater logic and coherence than so-called moderate or liberal Muslims, have made Islam the basis of a radical utopian ideology that aims to replace capitalism and democracy as the reigning world system. Islamism accounts for the anti-American hatred to be found in places far from the Arab-Israeli conflict, like Nigeria and Afghanistan, demonstrating that the Middle East conflict cannot legitimately be used to explain this phenomenon called Islamism. A Palestinian involved in the WTC bombings would be seen as a martyr to the Palestinian cause, but even more as a martyr to Islam.

“Ah, but Islamic fundamentalism is like any other kind of fundamentalism, one must not demonise it. It is the result of political, social grievances. It must be explained in terms of economics and not religion,” continue the apologists of Islam.

There are enormous differences between Islamic fundamentalism and any other kind of modern fundamentalism. It is true that Hindu, Jewish, and Christian fundamentalists have been responsible for acts of violence, but these have been confined to particular countries and regions. Islamic fundamentalism has global aspirations: the submission of the entire world to the all-embracing Shari’a, Islamic Law, a fascist system of dictates designed to control every single act of all individuals. Nor do Hindus or Jews seek to convert the world to their religion. Christians do indulge in proselytism but no longer use acts of violence or international terrorism to achieve their aims.

Only Islam treats non-believers as inferior beings who are expendable in the drive to world hegemony. Islam justifies any means to achieve the end of establishing an Islamic world.

Islamic fundamentalists recruit among Muslim populations, they appeal to Islamic religious symbols, and they motivate their recruits with Islamic doctrine derived from the Qur’an. Economic poverty alone cannot explain the phenomenon of Islamism. Poverty in Brazil or Mexico has not resulted in Christian fundamentalist acts of international terror. Islamists are against what they see as western materialism itself. Their choice is clear: Islam or jahiliyya. The latter term is redefined to mean modern-style jahiliyya of modern, democratic, industrialised societies of Europe and America, where man is under the dominion of man rather than Allah. They totally reject the values of the West, which they feel are poisoning Islamic culture. So, it is not just a question of economics, but of an entirely different worldview, which they wish to impose on the whole world. Sayyid Qutb, the very influential Egyptian Muslim thinker, said that “dominion should be reverted to Allah alone, namely to Islam, that holistic system He conferred upon men. An all-out offensive, a jihad, should be waged against modernity so that this moral rearmament could take place. The ultimate objective is to re-establish the Kingdom of Allah upon earth...”[2]

It is surely time for moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted. I should like to see them do three things:

All moderate Muslims should unequivocally denounce this barbarism, should condemn it for what it is: the butchery of innocent people,
2. All moderate Muslim citizens of the United States should proclaim their Americanness, their patriotism, and their solidarity with the families of the victims. They should show their pride in their country by giving blood and other aid to victims and their families.

3. All moderate Muslims should take this opportunity to examine the tenets of their faith; should look at the Qur’an, recognize its role in the instigation of religious violence, and see it for what it is, a problematical human document reflecting 7th or perhaps 8th Century values which the West has largely outgrown.

While it should not be too difficult for moderate Muslims to accept the need to denounce the violence of Terrorist Tuesday, I am not at all optimistic about their courage or willingness to proclaim their love for their chosen country, the USA, or examine the Qur’an critically.

Too many Muslims are taught from an early age that their first allegiance is to Islam. They are exhorted in sermons in mosques, and in books by such Muslim intellectuals as Dr Siddiqui of the Muslim Institute in London, that if the laws of the land conflict with any of the tenets of Islam, then they must break the laws of the infidels, and only follow the Law of God, the Shari’a, Islamic Law.

It is a remarkable fact that at the time of the Gulf War, a high proportion of Muslims living in the West supported Saddam Hussein. In the aftermath of the WTC terror, it is now clear from reports in the media that many Muslims, even those living in the West, see these acts of barbarism as acts of heroism; they give their unequivocal support to their hero, Usama bin Laden.

Few Muslims have shown themselves capable of scrutinising their sacred text rationally. Indeed any criticism of their religious tenets is taken as an insult to their faith, for which so many Muslims seem ready to kill (as in the Rushdie affair or the Taslima Nasreen affair). Muslims seem to be unaware that the research of western scholars concerning the existence of figures such as Abraham, Isaac and Joseph or the authorship of the Pentateuch applies directly to their belief system. Furthermore, it is surely totally irrational to continue to believe that the Qur’an is the word of God when the slightest amount of rational thought will reveal that the Qur’an contains words and passages addressed to God (e.g. VI.104; VI.114; XVII.1; XXVII.91; LXXXI.15-29; lxxxiv.16-19; etc.); or that it is full of historical errors and inconsistencies.

Respect for other cultures, for other values than our own, is a hallmark of a civilised society. But Multiculturalism is based on some fundamental misconceptions. First, there is the erroneous and sentimental belief that all cultures, deep down, have the same values; or, at least, if different, are equally worthy of respect. But the truth is that not all cultures have the same values, and not all values are worthy of respect. There is nothing sacrosanct about customs or cultural traditions: they can change under criticism. After all, the secularist values of the West are not much more than two hundred years old.

If these other values are destructive of our own cherished values, are we not justified in fighting them both by intellectual means, that is by reason and argument, and criticism, and by legal means, by making sure the laws and constitution of the country are respected by all? It becomes a duty to defend those values that we would live by. But here western intellectuals have sadly failed in defending western values, such as rationalism, social pluralism, human rights, the rule of law, representative government, individualism (in the sense that every individual counts, and no individual should be sacrificed for some utopian future collective end), freedom of expression, freedom of and from religion, the rights of minorities, and so on..

Instead, the so-called experts on Islam in western universities, in the media, in the churches and even in government bureaus have become apologists for Islam. They bear some responsibility for creating an atmosphere little short of intellectual terrorism where any criticism of Islam is denounced as fascism, racism, or “orientalism.” They bear some responsibility for lulling the public into thinking that “The Islamic Threat ” is a myth. It is our duty to fight this intellectual terrorism. It is our duty to defend the values of liberal democracy.

One hopes that the U.S. government will not now act in such a way that more innocent lives are lost, albeit on the other side of the globe. One hopes that even now there is a legal way out in international courts of law. The situation is far more delicate and complex than a simple battle between good and evil, the solution is not to beat hell out of all Arabs and Muslims but neither is it to pretend that Islam had nothing to do with it, for that would be to bury one’s head in the Sands of Araby.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] T.Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, entry “Jihad”

[2] E.Sivan, Radical Islam, New haven, 1985, p.25.

secularislam.org

[IlyaFurman]

whats the point of that article, all that guy ibn waraq or whatever posses is that he is not muslim anymore, hes not a scholar or anything, there are millions of christians and jewish reverts to their religion, and many write articles, doesnt mean they are valid or make sense.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
whats the point of that article, all that guy ibn waraq or whatever posses is that he is not muslim anymore, hes not a scholar or anything, there are millions of christians and jewish reverts to their religion, and many write articles, doesnt mean they are valid or make sense.

The Point of the article is that he is NOT A MUSLIM ANYMORE and WHY he Isn't.

Ilya... try substance, instead of substance abuse

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
The Point of the article is that he is NOT A MUSLIM ANYMORE and WHY he Isn't.

Ilya... try substance, instead of substance abuse

How about posting bs from people like Israel Shahak and other thousands of jews that say why they arent jewish anymore.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
How about posting bs from people like Israel Shahak and other thousands of jews that say why they arent jewish anymore.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

More NO Substance answers from Ilya.

Ilya, any facts you object to by this man?

Ilya you're a hot air Bag.... All comments/dismissal, NO rebuttal, NO substance.

[IlyaFurman]

Originally posted by abu afak
More NO Substance answers from Ilya.

Ilya, any facts you object to by this man?

Ilya you're a hot air Bag.... All comments/dismissal, NO rebuttal, NO substance.

IBN WARRAQ or whatever is NOT SUBSTANCE lol, that has to be one sided, you know what ill post a story on Israel Shahak, Hope you like it.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by IlyaFurman
IBN WARRAQ or whatever is NOT SUBSTANCE lol, that has to be one sided, you know what ill post a story on Israel Shahak, Hope you like it.

More NO Substance answers from Ilya.

Ilya, any facts you object to by this man?

Ilya you're a hot air Bag.... All comments/dismissal, NO rebuttal, NO substance.

[IlyaFurman]

THERE YOU GO ABU, SO IT IS COMING FROM A JEWISH PERSON, SO IS IT BELIVABLE??????? I hope not, ANSWER THAT PLEASE, IS THIS THE SUBSTANCE YOU WERE LOOKING FOR?


The Talmudic World View

In the end, Shahak reported, “Neither the Israeli, nor the diaspora, rabbinical authorities ever reversed their ruling that Jews should not violate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile…It became apparent to me, as, drawing on knowledge acquired in my youth, I began to study the Talmudic laws governing the relations between Jews and non-Jews, that neither Zionism, including its seemingly secular part, nor Israeli politics since the inception of the State of Israel, nor particularly the policies of the Jewish supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless the deeper influence of those laws, and the world view which they both create and express is taken into account.”

The Hatanya—the fundamental book of the Habbad movement, which is one of the most important branches of Hasidism—declares that all non-Jews are totally Satanic creatures “in whom there is nothing absolutely good.” Even a non-Jewish embryo is said to be qualitatively different from a Jewish one. The very existence of a non-Jew is “inessential,” whereas all of creation was created solely for the sake of the Jews.

Shahak points out that a widespread misunderstanding about Orthodox Judaism is that it is a “biblical religion,” that the Old Testament has in Judaism the same central place and legal authority that the Bible has for Protestants and even Roman Catholics. He notes that, “…the interpretation is rigidly fixed—but by the Talmud rather than by the Bible itself. Many, perhaps most, biblical verses prescribing religious acts and obligations are understood by classical Judaism and by present-day Orthodoxy in a sense which is quite distinct from, or even contrary to, their literal meaning as understood by Christians or other readers of the Old Testament, who see only the plain text.”

In the Decalogue itself, the Eighth Commandment, “Thou Shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:15) is taken to be a prohibition against “stealing” (that is, kidnapping) a Jewish person. “The reason,” Shahak writes, “is that according to the Talmud all acts forbidden by the Decalogue are capital offenses. Stealing property is not a capital offense (while the kidnapping of Gentiles by Jews is allowed by Talmudic law)—hence the interpretation.”

In numerous cases, Shahak shows, general terms such as “thy fellow,” “stranger,” or even “man” are taken to have an exclusivist and chauvinistic meaning. The famous verse “Thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18) is understood by classical (and present-day Orthodox) Judaism “as an injunction to love one’s fellow Jew, not any fellow human. Similarly, the verse ‘neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow’ (Leviticus 19:16) is supposed to mean that one must not stand idly by when the life (‘blood’) of a fellow Jew is in danger; but a Jew…is in general forbidden to save the life of a Gentile, because ‘he is not thy fellow.’”

The differentiation in appropriate treatment for Jews and non-Jews to be found in Talmudic commentaries is, Shahak shows, not simply an academic question. Instead, it relates to current Israeli government practices which are justified by reference to religious law.

A book published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli army, whose area includes the West Bank, contains the following declaration by the command’s chief chaplain: “When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to Halakah [Jewish law] they may and even should be killed….Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized….In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakah to kill even good civilians….”

Many contemporary Israeli policies refer to Talmudic rules. Thus, Shahak declares, “The Halakah forbids Jews to sell immovable property—fields and houses—in the Land of Israel to Gentiles. It is therefore clear that—exactly as the leaders and sympathizers of Gush Emunim say—the whole question of how the Palestinians ought to be treated is, according to the Halakah, simply a question of Jewish power; if Jews have sufficient power then it is their religious duty to expel the Palestinians….Maimonides declares; ‘When the Jews are more powerful than the Gentiles we are forbidden to let an idolater among us; even a temporary or itinerant trader shall not be allowed to pass through our land.’”

Jewish Fundamentalism

In the book Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Shahak and co-author Norton Mezvinsky lament the dramatic growth in recent years of Jewish fundamentalism which has manifested itself in opposition to the peace process and played a role in the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the murder of 29 Muslims at prayer by the American-born fundamentalist, Baruch Goldstein.

They cite, for example, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, who wrote a chapter of a book in praise of Goldstein and what he did. An immigrant to Israel from the U.S., Ginsburgh speaks freely of Jews’ genetic-based spiritual superiority over non-Jews; “If you saw two people drowning, a Jew and a non-Jew, the Torah says you save the Jewish life first….Something is special about Jewish DNA….If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah probably would permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value.”

Shahak and Mezvinsky point out that, “Changing the words ‘Jewish’ to ‘German’ or ‘Aryan’ and ‘non-Jewish’ to ‘Jewish’ turns the Ginsburgh position into the doctrine that made Auschwitz possible in the past. To a considerable extent the German Nazi success depended upon that ideology and upon its implication of being widely known early. Disregarding even on a limited scale the potential effects of messianic…and other ideologies could prove to be calamitous….The similarities between the Jewish political messianic trend and German Nazism are glaring. The Gentiles are for the messianists what the Jews were for the Nazis. The hatred of Western culture with its rational and democratic elements is common to both movements…. The ideology…is b